Guy seems to always have some exaggerated posts. Or he's just a lil off.

ok ok ok, I might have some exaggerated posts...but I promise you i'm not a little off...I try to keep my posts comical...sorry if I offend anybody though.

McNabb is certainly not a BUM, i'm just referring to the fact that he is an EAGLE and I hate the IGGLES, so can you really blame me? But McNabb is certainly a first ballot HOF in my honest opinion.

But, I do feel the best QB if we were to draft one would be Clausen...I know wrong thread...but that's just how I feel. I don't have any screws loose so don't worry fellas. Although some of my posts may lead people to believe otherwise!

33-year old McNabb isn't a meaningful improvement on Campbell. No reason to be delusional on this tire-kicking. It's merely a personal preference between two middle-of-the-pack guys.

When he's on the open market, lets consider him as a veteran stopgap. Until then, let's just calm down and let these trade winds blow over.

GTripp, I know you do your homework but you are more than stretching when you lump JC and McNabb together. Now maybe you are basing your statement on statistical analysis but you haven't been qualifying your statements.

JC is a middle of the pack guy, no doubt. McNabb isn't even close. Here is the bottom line, Philly under McNabb has dominated the NFC East. It isn't even close. JC has accomplished nothing, and I mean NOTHING. He hasn't won any meaningful regular season games. He has won no divisions. He hasn't been to the playoffs, let alone win a playoff game. He has been to zero NFC Championship games and from a statistical perspective JC is way below the mean from a winning percentage as a starting QB. Do we need to bring up Pro-Bowls?

If we are talking about winning, which is why they step on the field, McNabb is a great quarterback. JC is a nobody.

So you need to be a little more specific when you lump the two together.

GTripp, I know you do your homework but you are more than stretching when you lump JC and McNabb together. Now maybe you are basing your statement on statistical analysis but you haven't been qualifying your statements.

JC is a middle of the pack guy, no doubt. McNabb isn't even close. Here is the bottom line, Philly under McNabb has dominated the NFC East. It isn't even close. JC has accomplished nothing, and I mean NOTHING. He hasn't won any meaningful regular season games. He has won no divisions. He hasn't been to the playoffs, let alone win a playoff game. He has been to zero NFC Championship games and from a statistical perspective JC is way below the mean from a winning percentage as a starting QB. Do we need to bring up Pro-Bowls?

If we are talking about winning, which is why they step on the field, McNabb is a great quarterback. JC is a nobody.

So you need to be a little more specific when you lump the two together.

I was not aware that the wins came with McNabb as part of the trade. I consider myself corrected.

Why is it so foreign to lump McNabb in with the rest of the middle-of-the-pack NFL QBs? He's won one division since Campbell has been in the league, and Garcia started the final 5 weeks of that year. To give McNabb credit for that, we'd have to give Campbell at least the benefit of winning the WC in 2007. Playoff wins are playoff wins, McNabb has two since Campbell came into the league, and Campbell has no appearances. Advantage McNabb, but again, citing playoff wins of another team under another coaching staff that didn't have a Blache or a Zorn or a Saunders on it is exactly the personal preference I'm speaking of.

McNabb being a mid-tier QB is only one part of the story (as opposed to everything you need to know), but it's certainly true these days.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

You guys are funny. The whole thing might just be to see what they want for McNabb so they can expect what to get from trading JC. Sort of an intelligence gathering operation for further use. McNabb is not the best in the league by far, and is indeed just above average like JC, and he had a much better WR corp than JC to work with. I would worry more about JC being future trade bait in the not too distant future. Look for a possible deal come draft time.

I was not aware that the wins came with McNabb as part of the trade. I consider myself corrected.

Why is it so foreign to lump McNabb in with the rest of the middle-of-the-pack NFL QBs? He's won one division since Campbell has been in the league, and Garcia started the final 5 weeks of that year. To give McNabb credit for that, we'd have to give Campbell at least the benefit of winning the WC in 2007. Playoff wins are playoff wins, McNabb has two since Campbell came into the league, and Campbell has no appearances. Advantage McNabb, but again, citing playoff wins of another team under another coaching staff that didn't have a Blache or a Zorn or a Saunders on it is exactly the personal preference I'm speaking of.

McNabb being a mid-tier QB is only one part of the story (as opposed to everything you need to know), but it's certainly true these days.

The QB is the single most influential player on the field.

JC's absolute best season was 8-8. So far his ceiling is the mean and the same year that JC had his best season, McNabb was playing for the NFC championship. Following that season, McNabb won 11 games, JC lost 12.

I really don't give a damn about the YPA is or the completion percentage and all that. At this point in time, McNabb is a proven winner, JC is a proven loser.

You can prove anything you want with statistics at some point personal accountability needs to be considered.

JC has had plenty of opportunities to make the play to win us games late and he consistently falls short. I wish things were different but his history cannot be changed.

I'm totally at a loss as to how someone like Campbell can look to have done better in almost each catagory or be relativily close in stats in others and have two totally different passer ratings.

I wouldn't say their passer ratings are totally different. McNabb's at 92, Campbell's at 86. Passer rating is accurate in the general sense (100+ always good, 60- bad...in this era), but a 6 point difference in QB rating doesn't suggest anything.

Furthermore, it's based entirely on rate stats. That's where it derives most of it's accuracy from, but it also says that Campbell shouldn't get any more credit for starting 16 games than McNabb should get for starting 14. Where as something like passing yards or passing completions or first downs or touchdowns does consider who was able to stay healthy.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

JC's absolute best season was 8-8. So far his ceiling is the mean and the same year that JC had his best season, McNabb was playing for the NFC championship. Following that season, McNabb won 11 games, JC lost 12.

I really don't give a damn about the YPA is or the completion percentage and all that. At this point in time, McNabb is a proven winner, JC is a proven loser.
You can prove anything you want with statistics at some point personal accountability needs to be considered.

JC has had plenty of opportunities to make the play to win us games late and he consistently falls short. I wish things were different but his history cannot be changed.

This boldly emphasizes my point. You can prove anything you want with wins and losses, but ultimately, you are what you are. Having a really successful run from 2001-2004 cannot make McNabb larger than life. What he has become is an aging middle-of-pack passer. This should not be construed into something it isn't.

When you manipulate the sample enough, you can produce evidence that suggests that Mark Sanchez is a proven winner, while Tom Brady is a proven loser. One guy won two playoff games this year, the other won none. Sanchez won more games overall this year as well...in fact, they've won the same number of NFL games since 2007, including playoffs. If that's the production you care about, then stay consistent. To argue that Brady is more winning than Sanchez, you would have to either cite the pre-Sanchez past, or go to the stats. But if personal accountability is the disguise for mis-analysis, you would just conclude that Sanchez is a winner and that Brady should focus on trying to improve his plight in the future.

But because you have access to a bunch of information that suggests that I'm completely out of my mind to suggest Sanchez>Brady, you would just reject the argument of personal accountability on Brady's part. Which is exactly what I'm doing with McNabb-Campbell.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

This boldly emphasizes my point. You can prove anything you want with wins and losses, but ultimately, you are what you are. Having a really successful run from 2001-2004 cannot make McNabb larger than life. What he has become is an aging middle-of-pack passer. This should not be construed into something it isn't.

When you manipulate the sample enough, you can produce evidence that suggests that Mark Sanchez is a proven winner, while Tom Brady is a proven loser. One guy won two playoff games this year, the other won none. Sanchez won more games overall this year as well...in fact, they've won the same number of NFL games since 2007, including playoffs. If that's the production you care about, then stay consistent. To argue that Brady is more winning than Sanchez, you would have to either cite the pre-Sanchez past, or go to the stats. But if personal accountability is the disguise for mis-analysis, you would just conclude that Sanchez is a winner and that Brady should focus on trying to improve his plight in the future.

But because you have access to a bunch of information that suggests that I'm completely out of my mind to suggest Sanchez>Brady, you would just reject the argument of personal accountability on Brady's part. Which is exactly what I'm doing with McNabb-Campbell.

So you are using statistics to argue that Sanchez is better than Tom Brady... How is that hurting my argument?

I'm siding with Pocket$ on this one. Stats aside, McNabb has done more with similar talent and, in some cases, less talent than Jason Campbell has over the course of their respective careers. There's no disputing that.

The naysayers can point to McNabb's age and his inability to win the Super Bowl as reasons why the Skins shouldn't do it. As far as McNabb's age goes, top tier quarterbacks are playing well into their thirties nowadays and being very productive while they're at it. In terms of does this make the Skins a Super Bowl contender, well probably not. But we know for sure they aren't under Campbell either. My biggest issue with Campbell is that his stats are deceiving. Good enough to keep him around, but not bad enough to flat out dump him.

If --and it's a big f*cken if-- the front office pulls the trigger on this deal, there's likely a two to three year window and after that they cut their losses. But for what's on it's worth, I'm on the record saying that JC is outta here come by draft day if not before.